2013 (4) TMI 211 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Tribunal deleted the disallowance - Held that - By the impugned order the Tribunal has restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the file of the assessing officer to decide afresh in the light of the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. DCIT reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - No reason to entertain questions as framed by the Revenue. Addition being provision for bad debts on account loaned to its group concern - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of Vijaya Bank V/s. CIT 2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that once the provision of doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from the debtors account in the balancesheet, then, this would amount to writing off. In the present case, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the respondent - assessee has debited the provision of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced the assets by reducing the amount of unsecured loans. On the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that this would amount to writing off of the debt. Thus, on examination of facts it concluded that the respondent - assessee has written off the loan and would be entitled to the claim of bad debts - no reason to entertain question. Disallowance of long term capital loss - it is the case of the Revenue that the shares were sold due to family arrangement at very low prices and, hence, the loss is alleged to have been contrived - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - The Tribunal referred to the decision of of K.P. Varghese V/s. I.T.O. 1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT wherein it is held that it is not sufficient for the Revenue to merely allege that the assessee has received more consideration than what is declared, but the Revenue must prove that the assessee had in fact received more consideration. As in the present case the Revenue has not discharged the burden which is casts upon it in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of K.P. Vargese (supra). Further the Tribunal also recorded that in case the Revenue doubted the calculation of the intrinsic value of shares, it was open to the Revenue to rework the appropriate value so as to justify its allegation that the price at which they were transferred was low. In these circumstances no reason to entertain question. Computation of profits under Section 115JB - whether the provision of doubtful debts has to be added - Held that - In view of decision to Addition being provision for bad debts on account loaned to its group concern above, issue of adding back the provisions for the purpose of computing book profits does not survive. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the provision has been written off. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain question.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A
2. Provision for bad debts deduction
3. Long term capital loss claimed by the assessee
4. Addition of provision for doubtful debts to book profit under Section 115JB

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A:
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the assessing officer to decide afresh based on a previous decision. The Court found no reason to entertain the Revenue's questions regarding this issue, as the Tribunal's decision was based on relevant case law.

2. Provision for Bad Debts Deduction:
The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court decision stating that once a provision for doubtful debt is debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from the debtors' account in the balance sheet, it amounts to writing off. The Tribunal found that the respondent had written off the debt and qualified for the claim of bad debts under the Income Tax Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, as the respondent's activity of lending money was considered a business activity.

3. Long Term Capital Loss Claimed by the Assessee:
The Revenue alleged that the loss from selling unquoted shares at low prices was contrived due to a family arrangement. However, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the assessee received more consideration than declared. The Court found no reason to entertain the Revenue's questions related to this issue, as the burden of proof was not met by the Revenue.

4. Addition of Provision for Doubtful Debts to Book Profit under Section 115JB:
The Revenue argued that the provision of doubtful debts should be added back for computing profits under Section 115JB. However, the Court concluded that since the provision had been written off and qualified as bad debts, there was no need to add it back for computing book profits. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal without costs.

This comprehensive analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, detailing the Court's reasoning behind each decision and the application of relevant legal principles.

← Previous Next →